Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.
2007-11-02 13:02:47
On 2007-11-03 06:00, Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> One idea that was floated a couple of years ago, as part of a one-level
*> standards track, was to retain the register of implementation reports
*> (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html) and mark the entries
*> that have been approved by the IESG. The RFC index could then point to
*> approved implementation reports, without any formal "promotion" needed.
*>
*> Brian
*>
Brian,
So, this implementation report registry would be analogous to the
current errata registry> E.g., the RFC search engine would note
the existence of implementation reports for a particular RFC, just
as it now notes the existence of errata?
That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't see why we'd need the
overhead of making those reports into RFCs, and we'd have to ensure
that the IETF wasn't making any assertions that could carry
liability. (And I agree with the idea of reviving Larry Masinter's
draft.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Simon Josefsson
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Eliot Lear
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Ned Freed
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Daily Dose version 2 launched, John C Klensin |
Next by Date: |
Re: Daily Dose version 2 launched, Lixia Zhang |
Previous by Thread: |
RE: 2026, draft, full, etc., Hallam-Baker, Phillip |
Next by Thread: |
Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Dave Crocker |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|